Hating my A700, what to replace it with!

Kusca

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I have an A700 with a Minolta 28-85mm, 70-210mm, and Sony 35mm 1.8. But I have a few problems first of all I love UWA lens shots, and I do not have a UWA lens, but I want to get one, problem it looks like Sony is going to SLT design for the A700 replacement (maybe in whole lineup in the future). I do not prefer SLT cameras, I tried one and hated the viewfinder, it was one shot slower, and the resolution was terrible, plus the camera was too small for my hands.

Now 2 lenses I want to buy is a UWA lens and a fast midranged zoom lens. But I do not for what system, I do not want to buy it for my Sony because either way I am getting something other than a Sony for my next camera. Next year for sure I am buying a FF camera, and it is not a Sony A850 because that thing has almost the same high ISO performance of a D7000, I am waiting for either the Mark 5D ii replacement, or D700 replacement. Now what i am thinking about doing is selling my Sony A700 + 35mm 1.8 (what do you expect I would get with 1.5 year warranty still remaining?), and with those funds either buying an in term Crop sensor Canon or Nikon, and then buying the UWA lens and midrange zoom.

Reasons why I do not like my A700:

1. Very bad high ISO performance I have V4 firmware, with NR off, and my ISO 800 is unacceptable, let alone ISO 1600, or god forbid ISO 2200 on my A700.
2. Very bad AF in low light, in fact I find the Af very bad in all lighting situations

This summer I am going to Turkey (I go every year for 4 months), this is the first time I take a DSLR. I need high ISO performance in Mosque's museums where flash is not allowed and rude to use. Also general photography, and my favourite city scape wide angle HDR.
 
Last edited:
Sell it all, and grab a used FF Canon 5d off Craigslist for 1k to 1200, then get some starter glass with the rest and build from their. That's just my opinion.
 
Sell it all, and grab a used FF Canon 5d off Craigslist for 1k to 1200, then get some starter glass with the rest and build from their. That's just my opinion.


What full frame lenses should I get with it. I know which new ones to get but I mean like, Vintage Af lenses, for example my Minolta 70-210mm f/4 can be picked up for $200-300, but if I wanted something new like that I would be paying $700. I was thinking about the Ef 28-85mm + 50mm 1.8, whats a good used Canon UWA FF (if there are any).

BTW kinda funny, how exactly what you said my best friend told me to do the same, he told me to skip 1.5X sensor cameras, don't get a sony just because I have Minolta lenses, but I did not do those and I am paying for it now.
 
Hi Kusca
Buy a Nikon D 700 and you will be satisfied with the amazing result of this camera, buy with NANO Nikon lenses.

Regards
spectrum
 
Last edited:
Get a D700. For shooting wide stuff Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 is the best.
 
Get a D700!

Its high ISO performance, Auto-focus and its weather sealing or surpass that of the Canon 5D!
 
Thanks for all of your replies:

D700, or the replacement, was what I was planning to get next year, I do not have the funds to get it before this summer before I go off to Turkey.

But I know the lenses I want to get for it:
The 16-35mm f/4 VR --> I want VR for the low light long exposure shots indoors, there is no Canon UWA FF image stabilized lens,

28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR ----> Jack of all trades walk around lensComparable Canon is bigger and twice the price another reason why not to go for Canon for me

50mm f/1.8
What do you guys think?

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR or the 14-24mm f/2.8, I like having the VR
 
Keep it all and get a tri-pod. All digital cameras perform their very best at low ISO and why settle for less than the best? Besides with new anti-shake technologies you already get an extra few stops over film. I mean a few years ago digital and film all had fairly rough high ISO performance - this conundrum is nothing new. Besides Sony high ISO isn't "bad" per-se. It's just bad in comparison to some of the current competition. But still better than digital just a few years ago. Anyway- I say get the a850 and the zeiss 16-35mm 2.8 and a tripod and shoot at 400 iso or below.
 
Keep it all and get a tri-pod.

Just about the worst advice ever, tripod would stop shake from your camera but it won't freeze the subject if its moving. For that you need to increase shutter speed and for that you are going to need to increase ISO.

So get the D700.
 
If you actually read his question he said he needs high ISO because he wants to shoot museums and mosques. Most the time those things are fairly still. As much as you love your technology and get wrapped around brands and like to spend people's money, I think for the things he mentioned a tri-pod would work fine. In fact the sony A-580 performs awfully close to your d7000 costs 30-40% less and he can still use all his equipment on it. If you were actually believed he was looking to stop fast motion in low light sans-flash and were trying to be the MOST helpful instead of being a camera brand fan boy, you'd probobly have suggested that.

I'd say that's a good option. But I think he'd do fine, for what he mentioned, with a good tripod.
 
some more reading on the subject:

Sony A580 review (+ ISO quality vs Nikon D7000) | Camera Rumors

Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 preview: High ISO JPEG Noise results, Sony Alpha A580 vs Nikon D7000 | Cameralabs
shows similar performance up to 800 iso maybe even 1600

Anyway- those are a good start. I've used both. I prefer the feel and body of the nikon also if you shoot through the viewfinder the nikon is definitely nicer to look through. If you use liveview, it's a wash in my opinion. Image performance is pretty much the same up to 1600ISO from pics I've seen first hand. Above that, the nikon looks better, but with sony's noise reduction in processing, again, pretty close. There's all sorts of processing ways to get rid of noise. The sony is lighter and cheaper and the high end lenses are good and you only pay for shake reduction once. I typically use old contax manual focus lenses on the Sony's which are typically a bit better than the canikon lenses I've used and are cheaper than the new Sony Zeiss lenses. Though I read once long ago and still believe that "most lenses are better than most photographers". Not all mind you, but most people don't really know how to get the most out of the equipment they already have.

Of course, you can get those old contax lenses, and leica for that matter, remounted for nikon as well. I've personally messed around with those on a friends system as well as nikon glass on a canon on my own systems. It's really amazing how you can get so many best of both world scenarios out there.

Anyway, personally, I'd stick with what you have for now. Stabilize it further. And wait until you get the camera you really want. Back in the day cameras were just fancy film holders, but now that we have sensors to contend with things have gotten more complicated. Whichever one you get though, know it'll be "inferior" in two years YET will probably STILL TAKE better pictures than those with newer cameras that don't know how to use them. That being the case, figure out which lens system you like best. I like nikon consumer class lenses over the sony's but I prefer Sony zeiss over the high end nikon especially with the shake reduction in the camera. Plus you get that same shake reduction even in old manual focus adapted lenses, as long as you put a chip on there, which gives you some superior optical options pretty darn cheap.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top